4 ms·

Its still nothing new. IBM was doing this with mainframes in the '70s. The mainframes they installed typically had more horsepower than your were licensed for

Its still nothing new. IBM was doing this with mainframes in the '70s. The mainframes they installed typically had more horsepower than your were licensed for. When you needed more power, the IBM rep came over with an impressive suitcase of equipment, locked himself inside your server room and simply flipped a switch and then ran some diagnostics for an hour or so to further the illusion.

_delirium 16y ago
IBM didn't even pretend that that they "sold" you the mainframes, though; they were explicitly rented.
reitzensteinm 16y ago
So you're saying that IBM got their representitives to do more than necessary to cover up the fact that the upgrade as just a flip of a switch? That they were conscious of what their customers would think - business customers that are probably far more understanding of this type of arrangement than the average consumer? The fact that we know it's been going on a while means nothing to the average consumer. Crippling of CPUs used to be magic that happened at the chip fabs that only people connected to the industry knew about. Now consumers are being openly told that their chips have been crippled in software, and if they pay more, that magical switch will be flipped. I don't know if there'll be a big backlash or not, but this is not business as usual. Intel's small step forward has suddenly made the pratice visible.
ShabbyDoo 16y ago
As recently as five years ago, IBM would do a mainframe deal sort of like this: You get X MIPS available, but only YY% of those MIPS will be turned on with the option of turning on additional computing power during the period of the deal. There was no pretense that the hardware wasn't already present.
JanezStupar 16y ago
AFAIK mainframe business still works exactly like this. And I see no problem with it. It is good on two fronts. 1. If you're savvy you can hack the chip thus getting more for less (Premium on your ability). 2. If you're not savvy then you can buy exactly what you're after at price point that is acceptable to you (thus ensuring a proper price/performance). People feel cheated since they didn't get more than what they paid for? I always assumed that trade happens when two parties reach a level where both "agree" that they get what they expected out of the deal. There is no need to go all ape on Intel -> IC manufacturing is a cutthroat business with insane risks and low margins. If Intel can profit from different people willing to pay more for the "same" thing (and yes for anyone that knows and understands Amdahl's law its perfectly clear that within a microchip generation difference between high and low end is mostly superficial - regarding to system performance). I recommend reading Spolsky's Camels and Rubber Duckies: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckie...

_delirium 16y ago

IBM didn't even pretend that that they "sold" you the mainframes, though; they were explicitly rented.

reitzensteinm 16y ago

So you're saying that IBM got their representitives to do more than necessary to cover up the fact that the upgrade as just a flip of a switch? That they were conscious of what their customers would think - business customers that are probably far more understanding of this type of arrangement than the average consumer? The fact that we know it's been going on a while means nothing to the average consumer. Crippling of CPUs used to be magic that happened at the chip fabs that only people connected to the industry knew about. Now consumers are being openly told that their chips have been crippled in software, and if they pay more, that magical switch will be flipped. I don't know if there'll be a big backlash or not, but this is not business as usual. Intel's small step forward has suddenly made the pratice visible.

ShabbyDoo 16y ago

As recently as five years ago, IBM would do a mainframe deal sort of like this: You get X MIPS available, but only YY% of those MIPS will be turned on with the option of turning on additional computing power during the period of the deal. There was no pretense that the hardware wasn't already present.

JanezStupar 16y ago

AFAIK mainframe business still works exactly like this. And I see no problem with it. It is good on two fronts. 1. If you're savvy you can hack the chip thus getting more for less (Premium on your ability). 2. If you're not savvy then you can buy exactly what you're after at price point that is acceptable to you (thus ensuring a proper price/performance). People feel cheated since they didn't get more than what they paid for? I always assumed that trade happens when two parties reach a level where both "agree" that they get what they expected out of the deal. There is no need to go all ape on Intel -> IC manufacturing is a cutthroat business with insane risks and low margins. If Intel can profit from different people willing to pay more for the "same" thing (and yes for anyone that knows and understands Amdahl's law its perfectly clear that within a microchip generation difference between high and low end is mostly superficial - regarding to system performance). I recommend reading Spolsky's Camels and Rubber Duckies: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckie...